Californian chickens to be happier under the new law? That is a million dollar question!

Is it humane to apply human standards to animals? That is the million dollar question now being asked by some critics who feel that the new law promulgated recently in the Californian state of the US has gone too far in upholding animal welfare. The issue is simple but the answer can be very complex! The new law stipulates how large a chicken cage must be and unless poultry farmers raise the layers in such cages their eggs cannot be sold in any market in that state. On the face of it it looks very "humane" but scratch a little deep then the realization comes that it does not make much sense. This is what the critics tell us.They ask the question whether the birds are happier now than before? Who can answer that question except the chickens themselves! If the contention that larger cages are more dangerous to the birds is some what difficult to understand but they illustrate their view by pointing out that birds in larger cages are more prone to physical harm and diseases. One of the reasons for small cages being order of the day is that if more moving space is given the birds start attacking each other, waste the energy through unnecessary movements and do not put on weight which in turn affect the meat yield. Listen to these opposing arguments and decide for yourself where the truth lies!

"California's revolutionary animal-welfare rules — which mandate that chickens be given enough room to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely — are finally going into effect with the new year, 2015. Voters passed the law (it was a ballot initiative) in 2008. Since then, there have been legislative tweaks and a lot of legal wrangling, all culminating in a law that bars selling eggs in California unless they come from chickens that are given a little more room to move around. There are two things that make this fascinating to a food-policy nerd like me. First, instead of primarily regulating farmers, the rules primarily regulate eaters. So far, voters and lawmakers have been a lot more interested in telling farmers what to do than in passing laws that constrain what eaters can buy. The distinction has massive implications for the effects of the law. Second, the rules institute a completely new logic for determining animal welfare than has traditionally been used in American farming. That has chicken farmers tearing at their hair in frustration: If you accept the traditional logic, these animal-welfare rules may actually leave the chickens worse off; but if you accept the logic of the reformers, it's clear that this will be an improvement (if only a marginal one). It's one of those tricky situations where the conclusions matter less than the reasoning used to reach those conclusions."

Traditionalists always feel that old is gold and chicken and egg produced by large farms to day do not taste as well as they did during olden days, say about 50-60 years ago. It is difficult to vouchsafe for this bland statement without any comparative scientific study. But it a fact that even to day many consumers have a distinct preference for cage free chickens and free roaming pasture animals for which they are ready to pay a little more in the market. If this is the trend industry has to fulfill the consumer asp[aspiration by changing their current practices irrespective of the cost involved. One of the problems inherent in a vast market with no boundaries is that such standards, if not accepted by all the producers across the country, there is bound to be wide price differences with most consumers invariably choosing to go for the cheaper versions whether they are bad or indifferent! If Californian eggs become costlier because of new cage rules, cheaper eggs from neighboring states are bound to dominate the domestic market. If that happens, what will happen to the domestic poultry industry? Probably the new law which started kicking in only recently, let us wait and watch the consequences of its operation, if any.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

FARMERS MARKETS IN THE US-HOW GENUINE ARE THEY?

The organic food movement which started in a small way a few years ago to satisfy the growing demand in the market for safe foods produced/processed without using synthetic chemicals and other unnatural inputs has become a force to reckon with to day. Its share may not be high, less than 10% of the food sector market, every one wants to get into this band wagon and this has naturally caused some distortions vis-a-vis quality of organic foods in some parts of the world. Similarly the local foods and farmers market movement became a rage in the US, most states providing a platform for the small farmers in the locality and nearby to sell their products directly to the consumer without any middle man or retailer in between. The basic presumption is that local farmers bring their produce from nearby with least green gas emission foot print unlike the long haulage involved in most organized retail operations. Besides small farmers are presumed to be honest and do not indulge in unfair agricultural practices. Most farmers markets maintain a degree of integrity that has endeared them to consumers. However recent findings that there are frequent frauds happening in this sector is raising eye brows all around. Here is a take on this subject as reported from the US.

"One doesn't usually think of farmers' markets as being prime locations for fraud, but apparently they do see their fair share of unethical behaviour. When a vendor misrepresents products, whether through direct mislabeling or lack of labeling, the integrity of the market is undermined for everyone. The state of California has decided to crack down on farmers' market fraud. Last week, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a new law authorizing the creation of a group of investigators to ensure that market vendors are following the rules – that is, selling local produce that they've grown themselves and was not purchased wholesale. Every market has its own set of regulations. In New York City, most of the major farmers' markets are run by a non-profit organization called GrowNYC, which ensures that markets are producer-only. That means that vendors can only sell items that they've grown themselves; no reselling, even if clearly labeled, is allowed. As Modern Farmer reports, GrowNYC maintains its high standards by employing investigators who keep an eye on vendors, taking note of any suspicious things such as retail boxes, waxed fruit, or consistently high volume of produce."

It is gratifying that states like California are promulgating stricter laws to deter potential fraudsters from -misrepresenting the products as locally self grown while really they are resellers owning no responsibility for any violations. Farmers market is an excellent concept worth emulating all over the world to encourage small farmers who are at the mercy of mega corporations dealing with food for reaching the market. In India it is incongruous to see a situation where government does not allow direct selling of farmers produce to the consumer. In stead only middle men are licensed to buy the produce from the farmers and most of the time the prices are rigged leading to exploitation of the poor farmers by these sharks. Even in a country like Malaysia there are so called "wet markets" where any one can bring their produce to the market for direct sale to buyers. The weekly shandies in some states in India, mostly in rural parts, do serve the purpose of direct sale but in cities direct sale is not invariably permitted. States in the US like California and New York have strong monitoring regime for safeguarding the integrity and credibility of the Farmers markets and fraudsters are severely punished for violating the concerned regulatory regime put in place for the purpose. India must consider removing the much hated APMC Act that comes in the way of setting up exclusive markets for farmers all over the country, providing necessary infrastructure for handling and storage of perishables and ensuring fair trade practices.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

GM FOOD LABELING-THE WAR IS HOTTING UP!

The mandatory "front of the pack labeling" is intended to respect the right of every citizen to know what is inside a food pack and compare the same with what is offered by others in the market. Almost all countries have labeling regulations with little variations but basically the objectives remain the same. While consumers whole heartedly welcomed such initiatives for the benefit of the community at large, it is the industry which consistently and aggressively resists such regulations, fearing an adverse impact on its financial health. If food industry appears on the wrong side of the consumer family it is because of such gross insensitivity to the well being and sufferings of the very consumers who after all provide its "bread and butter". The on-going war on mandatory GM labeling policy being put on the ballot initiative in California, USA for eliciting majority opinion is being furiously resisted by the industry and millions of dollars are being invested to defeat the proposal. It is very difficult to imagine the reason for such a negative attitude of the industry, considering that what is being asked from them is to declare if their products contain genetically altered ingredients. After all there are many processors who do not use GM ingredients in their products and an opportunity "window" opens up for the consumer to buy those products if labeling is insisted upon. Here is an interesting critique on the subject and consumers all over the will be looking for a massive endorsement of the policy initiative in California.

"This November, Californians will vote for or against Prop 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. The outcome of that vote will likely determine whether the U.S. will one day join the nearly 50 other countries that allow their citizens to choose between genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered food through the enactment of laws requiring mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms(GMOs). The election is three months away, but the battle lines were drawn months ago. Lining up against the consumer's right to know — and throwing plenty of money into the fight — is a long list of industry front groups, food conglomerates and biotech companies. Near the top of that list is the powerful Washington, DC-based Grocery Manufacturer's Association (GMA), a multi-billion-dollar trade association. The GMA represents America's $1.2 trillion "Big Food" industry, led by supermarket chains, Monsanto and other biotech companies, animal drug companies, multinational food manufacturers, and junk food restaurants — all of whom rely on the use of dangerous chemicals, pesticides, animal drugs, and GMOs to produce cheap, contaminated food".

One natural question that arises out of the above situation is why the industry is opposing the transparency sought to be achieved through the new labeling policy when there are divergent views regarding the safety and environment dangers posed by GM foods. If irradiated foods, with tons of safety studies concluding that they are safe, needs to be labeled under American law, why not GM foods? A logical question that must replied by those opposing GM labeling proposal. It is amusing to note the stand taken by the antagonists of the proposed policy of compulsory labeling regarding the impact of such a move on the future of Biotechnology as if this modern wonder science is restricted to only developing GM foods! One important consideration about this issue is regarding the logistical difficulties that may arise once California voters approve the proposal because California is one of the 50 states in the US and food industry will have to either declare GM foods for entire country or separate labels need to be printed on products made and marketed in that state. Probably Food and Drug Administration deserves blame for this dilemma as this agency has shirked its responsibility by not passing such a law with national foot print, applicable to the entire country, probably bowing to the lobbying power of the GM food industry giants..

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

GM FOODS-THE GREAT LABELING WAR!

Labeling regulations which are in force in many countries have been evolved to provide useful information to consumers regarding the nature of foods sold, its nutritive value, expiration date, price per unit and any others of relevance. The system currently in vogue has served admirably in most cases though there are rumblings from some quarters seeking more information about the foods marketed. The information provided is mostly confined to the products and no one questions the nature of technology used to prepare the foods. One of the exceptions to this rule was made in the case of irradiated foods where some countries insist on declaring irradiation process on the label. The endless campaign to compel the food industry to declare whether a particular food is made through genetic engineering technology or whether the product contains ingredients made by genetic manipulation is running its course in countries like the US where a massive procession was taken out by antagonists of GM foods to the Office of the President of that country demanding compulsory labeling of such foods. This is a very controversial subject with no unanimity regarding the safety of GM foods on a long term basis with opponents and supporters marshaling "evidence" in support of their stand. While the food safety authorities in the US has not changed its stand taken in 1992 that GM products are safe to consume, there are many states which are taking initiatives to force their local governments to impose such labeling restrictions. The State of California, considered one of the most progressive states in the US is considering  compulsory labeling regulations based on a referendum to be carried out soon to seek people's view. If passed by a majority, no food industry can sell any product containing GM food ingredients in that state. It will be interesting to watch the developing situation which will shape the future of GM foods in the US. Here is take on this controversial subject.     

Voters will soon decide whether to make California the first state in the country to require labels on products such as sweet corn whose genes have been altered to make them resistant to pests. Proposition 37 promises to set up a big-money battle pitting natural food businesses and activists against multinational companies including PepsiCo,Coca-Cola and Kellogg. Backers and opponents have already raised nearly $4 million combined for campaigns to sway voters, an amount that's likely to swell into the tens of millions of dollars as the November election approaches. So-called GMO foods — those made from genetically modified organisms — have been declared safe by U.S. regulators. But concern persists about the unforeseen consequences of this laboratory tinkering on human health and the environment. The outcome in California could rattle the entire U.S. food chain. An estimated 70% to 80% of processed foods sold in supermarkets could be affected, industry experts said, along with a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables. The measure qualified for the California ballot with nearly 1 million signatures; labeling in the state could set a precedent that's followed nationwide. "This will be a big fight," said Shaun Bowler, a UC Riverside political scientist specializing in initiatives. "This is a popular issue because people are very afraid of the words 'genetically engineered.' And the people who sell this stuff are worried about losing sales." Backers of the initiative are encouraged by a pair of recent national opinion surveys showing that about 9 out of 10 consumers support labeling. A California-specific poll, released Thursday by the Business Roundtable and the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, showed Proposition 37 has an almost 3-to-1 ratio of support, with 64.9% of prospective voters favoring it, compared with 23.9% opposed. 

Why the US alone is resisting this labeling demand is some what unclear though strong lobbying by GM food giants with billions of dollars at stake may be behind this anachronism. Over 50 countries have compulsory labeling rule for GM foods and nothing untoward has happened during the last few years such restrictions were in force. The fact that GM food labeling controversy has become a political foot ball match between the States and the Federal Government is making the situation more dicey. It is not clear how similar propositions to label GM foods never got majority support in some 20 states where balloting had taken place during the last few years. Whether California balloting will break with the past remains to be seen but if pre-referendum polls of overwhelming support from the people, are to be believed, food industry in the US will have to work out a different strategy to market their food products in that state since  almost 80% of foods in that country are based on GM ingredients.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

INDIAN "CHOW TRUCK"-DESI FOODS ON THE "ROADS"

It was not long ago that mention was made by this blogger regarding the need to popularize Indian ethnic foods outside India, emulating the success of Mexican foods promoted by the two restaurant chains in the US, Taco Bell and Chipotle. The initiative by one of the reputed chefs in California to start a mobile restaurant peddling some Indian foods to American consumers, suitably modified to suit the local palate is commendable. The Food Truck phenomenon seems to be catching up with consumers probably because of the convenience, unique taste, reasonable cost, easy access and the simplicity.

Chef Sumant Pardal may hold the food truck speed record for concept to execution. Ten days after he decided to bring Indian food to the streets of Southern California the India Jones Chow Truck was on the road. Food quality wasn't sacrificed to speed, however; Pardal has been in the restaurant business for over 30 years and he has created a menu that's fast, functional, and delicious. The best example of this approach is the Frankie, which is India's answer to the burrito. Beef, lamb, cheese, fish, or shrimp are combined with cilantro tamarind chutney, chopped onion, and egg and wrapped in a roti, which is kinda like a thick tortilla. Chef Sumant also puts his own twist on non-Indian dishes with the Samosa Spring Rolls and Mango Baby Back Ribs, but if you're more interested in that ubiquitous item from the Subcontinent, the curry, you can choose from one of four different varieties. Whether you stick to the traditional Indian offerings or get more adventurous, it's hard to disagree with Cathy from the blog gas·tron·o·my when she calls India Jones "Simply delightful!"

Probably more such entrepreneurs may enter this line of business because one can start the business with low capital investment, quick start up and minimum over head costs. Relatively short time needed to launch the venture is another advantage. Being a chef with local experience has its own advantage and credibility. It is becoming difficult for Indian entrepreneurs in the US to establish new restaurants in most of the big cities because of high real estate cost and food truck mode recommends itself for a quick beginning and establish reputation within a short time. Also a truck has the wherewithal to shift the operation to different localities and by relying on the tweeter mode of communication, clientele can be kept informed about the location promptly.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com